On 19.03.2019 1:56, Brian wrote: > On Tue 19 Mar 2019 at 01:45:20 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: > >> On 19.03.2019 0:38, Brian wrote: >>> The advice is good but is there a good reason to advocate installing >>> hplip from source rather than from the stretch package? >>> >> I didn't advocated per se the installation of upstream package, the >> point was to tell OP of it's existence, among the other things. >> As I stated before, I never used hplip myself, but it's good to know it >> is already in official repositories. > You could have checked beforehand. There are so many things in my life I'd like to check beforehand. >> $ rmadison -s stretch,stretch-backports hplip >> hplip | 3.16.11+repack0-3 | stable | source, amd64, >> arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x >> hplip | 3.18.12+dfsg0-2~bpo9+1 | stretch-backports | source, amd64, >> arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x >> >> I would recommend to install upstream package only if the most recent >> version of it is absolutely required and I highly doubt it is required >> in this case. > You doubt correctlly. > >> But even then, personally, I'd try to build a backport from source >> package available from 'experimental' first, or build from a tarball and >> use tools, like 'checkinstall', to make a simple deb package. >> Those procedures are right thing to do, but it's for the users to decide >> if they are up for the task, because these procedures often require >> serious time investment and expertise. > Unnecessary. Backports already exist. It's only a matter of checking. > The latest version of hplip (3.19.1) is only available in 'experimental' for now, so backport of it for stretch doesn't exist. You'd know that it's only matter of checking. :)
-- With kindest regards, Alexander. ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
